Partly allowed

The Claim Manager v. Sunil Kumar M K

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2021MFA/981/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Vehicle First Appeal, the High Court partially allowed the Insurance Company's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court held liability but modified the quantum of compensation to Rs.14,55,000 and reduced the interest rate to 6% per annum based on evidence and applicable multipliers.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation reduced to Rs 14,55,000; interest rate reduced to 6%; liability and apportionment remanded as per original orders.

The Claim Manager Vs Sunil Kumar M K — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.981 OF 2017 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

The Claim Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited No.186/7, Ground Floor Raghavendra Complex Hosur Main Road, Wilson Garden Bangalore-560 027.

¶10

By Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Subranaiam Building II Floor, No.1, Club House Road Annasasalai Chennai-600 002.

¶11

...Appellant

¶12

(By Shri O Mahesh, Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Sunil Kumar M K Aged about 23 years S/o Kempegowda

¶15

¶16

Madbal Village, Magadi Taluk Ramanagara Districe-571 511.

¶17

Siddagangamma C Major #27, 9^th Cross Kempegowda Nagar St. Yesh Public School Herohalli, Vishwaneedam Post Bangalore-560 091.

¶18

Sri A R Paramesh Major S/o Rangappa Adagur Village and Panchayath Kasaba Hobli, Channarayapatna Hassan District-573 201.

¶19

….Respondents

¶20

(By Shri B N Gopala Krishna, Advocate for R1; Shri N Sathish, Advocate for R3;

¶21

Vide order dated 21.04.2021 notice to R2 dispensed with)

¶22

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 24.11.2016 passed in MVC No.1395 of 2014 on the file of the Member Principal MACT, Bengaluru, awarding amount of Rs.17,55,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶23

This Miscellaneous First appeal coming on for orders, this day, INDIRESH J., delivered the following:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

This appeal is filed by the Respondent-Insurance Company

¶26

challenging judgment and award dated 24^th November, 2016 passed in MVC No.1395 of 2014 by Member, Principal Motor

¶27

¶28

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal’), on the ground of liability and quantum of compensation.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal

¶30

are referred to with their status and rank before the Tribunal.

¶31

It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 27^th October, 2013, claimant and his friends were returning to Bangalore from Madabal village, Magadi Taluk in an Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.KA-41/N-7855 and when they reached near Kallur cross, the driver of the car dashed to the lorry which was parked on the roadside. In view of the said accident, the claimant sustained severe injuries and therefore filed MVC No.1395 of 2014 on the file of the Tribunal seeking compensation. On service of notice, the respondent-Insurance Company entered appearance and filed detailed written statement, denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondents No.1 and 2 placed ex-parte. Based on the pleadings on record, the Tribunal formulated issues for its consideration. The claimant was examined as PW1 and he has

¶32

¶33

examined the Doctor as PW2 and marked 14 documents as Exhibits P1 to P14. No evidence on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and award dated 24^th November, 2016, allowed the claim petition in part and held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.17,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent-Insurance Company has presented this appeal on the ground of liability and quantum.

¶34

We have heard Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and Sri B.N. Gopala Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1; and Sri N. Satish, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that perusal of the mahazar-Exhibit P3 and spot sketch-Exhibit P5 would clearly establish that the offending lorry was parked on the road obstructing the free flow of traffic and as a result of the same, the accident occurred and the said aspect

¶36

¶37

of the matter was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. He further contended that the claimant ought to have fastened the seat-belt to avoid severe injuries enumerated in the wound certificate. He further contended that income of the injured taken at Rs.10,000/- per month is on the higher side, besides, the interest awarded at the rate of 9% per annum, requires to be interfered with.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant sought to justify the impugned judgment and award.

¶39

In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have carefully considered the finding recorded by the Tribunal and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained injury on account of road traffic accident occurred on 27^th October, 2013. It is the case of the claimant that he was pursuing second year B.E. at GSS Institute of Technology, Kengeri, Bangalore. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the mahazar and sketch marked Exhibits P3 and P5 respectively, arrived at a conclusion that the said accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver

¶40

¶41

of the car. It is not in dispute that the charge sheet (Exhibit P2) filed against the driver of the car. Perusal of the sketch-Exhibit P5 would clearly indicate that the said accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the car and in that view of the matter, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted regarding liability and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 is just and proper.

¶42

Insofar as award of compensation is concerned, as per Exhibit P6, claimant was studying II Year B.E. at GSS Institute of Technology, Bangalore and was aged about 20 years. We have carefully considered the testimony of PW2-Doctor, who had deposed that the claimant suffered 50% disability to the whole body and 75% to the limb. We have also taken note of the photographs of the injured which is produced along with Exhibit P14-Disability report. Deposition of PW2 indicates that the claimant suffered injury to the brain and in that view of the matter, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the disability, as recorded by the Tribunal at 50%. However, the

¶43

¶44

Tribunal, while computing award towards future loss of earning, had added 50% of the income towards future prospects. Admittedly, evidence of PW2-Doctor envisages that the claimant sustained disability at 50% and therefore, the addition of 50% towards future prospects, requires to be modified. Hence, the compensation under future loss of earning is re-assessed taking the income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month. The appropriate multiplier would be 18 as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 and therefore, the claimant is entitled for Rs.10,80,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 18 x 50%) towards loss of future earning due to disability. We have carefully gone through the injuries sustained by the claimant as per Exhibit P4 and on evaluation of the testimony of PW2-Doctor, we are of the view that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,00,000/towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards marriage prospects of the claimant and therefore we have re-assessed the award of the Tribunal and

¶45

¶46

thereby award Rs.1,00,000/towards loss of marriage prospects. Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses. In the result, the claimant is entitled for the compensation as follows:

¶47

Sl.No.	Head of compensation	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Pain and suffering	1,00,000
2.	Food and nourishment, conveyance, attendant charges and other incidental expenses	25,000
3.	Loss of future earning due to permanent disability	10,80,000
4.	Loss of amenities	1,00,000
5.	Marriage prospects	1,00,000
6.	Medical expenses	50,000
	Total	14,55,000

¶48

We have also noticed that the Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 9% from the date of claim petition. Taking into consideration the prevailing Bank interest rate, the claimant is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶49

Hence, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

¶53

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified by reducing the amount to Rs.14,55,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakh fifty five thousand only) as against Rs.17,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶54

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact.

¶55

iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶56

v) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶57

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶58

¶59

vii) The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit along with the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶60

viii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

lnn

The Claim Manager v. Sunil Kumar M K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Claim Manager v. Sunil Kumar M K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sannathimmakka Vs H Hanumanthaiah

Sri Narayana v Gonda Vs Sri Prasad Ballal

Smt K Geetha Vs Sri Veeranna Chakrasali

Chikkannanaika Vs Santosh

Sri a M Shekharappa Vs Mr N Vivek Shetty

Smt Hemavathi @ Dhanushree Vs Sri Ram Gen. Insu. Co. Ltd.